At 8:47 PM +0100 8/10/07, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Steve, You seem to prefer that this work be scoped so as to be limited to x.509 TAs only. I'm just wondering if you see any specific benefit to that, or if its just that you've not seen specific enough reasons to want to support more than x.509? (From my p-o-v, I guess I'd argue that any TA related work starting in 2008 shouldn't only support x.509.) S.
1. I noted in my comments on the problem statement that it was essentially X.509-centric, with just lip service to other contexts. This says that we will have to work hard(er) to create a problem statement that is truly inclusive, and this is not just fluff.
2. I have not seen specific, well-reasoned comments on the problem statement from the other communities we might try to encompass. We need that input, and a corresponding expression of a willingness to work on the problem, to justify the effort to get #1 right :-).
3. So far the greatest interest seems to have been shown by folks who are focused on the X.509 arena, which suggests that this ought to be the first priority. It's always tempting to say that we will scope an effort to not exclude other contexts where we can envision a solution might be applicable, but that tends to make it even harder to make progress in the area that we agree ought to be the highest priority. I think our difficult in writing a good definition of a TA is indicative of the sort of additional work we incur when we try to broaden the scope.
None of this means we can't decide to address more than the X.509 context, but it may suggest that we ought not adopt a broader scope by default.
Steve